Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review

Author:

Hancock Shaun LORCID,Ryan Olivia F,Marion Violet,Kramer SharonORCID,Kelly Paulette,Breen Sibilah,Cadilhac Dominique AORCID

Abstract

ObjectivePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide self-reported patient assessments of their quality of life, daily functioning, and symptom severity after experiencing an illness and having contact with the health system. Feeding back summarised PROs data, aggregated at the health-service level, to healthcare professionals may inform clinical practice and quality improvement efforts. However, little is known about the best methods for providing these summarised data in a way that is meaningful for this audience. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to summarise the emerging approaches to PROs data for ‘service-level’ feedback to healthcare professionals.SettingHealthcare professionals receiving PROs data feedback at the health-service level.Data sourcesDatabases selected for the search were Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and targeted web searching. The main search terms included: ‘patient-reported outcome measures’, ‘patient-reported outcomes’, ‘patient-centred care’, ‘value-based care’, ‘quality improvement’ and ‘feedback’. Studies included were those that were published in English between January 2009 and June 2019.Primary and secondary outcome measuresData were extracted on the feedback methods of PROs to patients or healthcare providers. A standardised template was used to extract information from included documents and academic publications. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence for Effectiveness.ResultsOverall, 3480 articles were identified after de-duplication. Of these, 19 academic publications and 22 documents from the grey literature were included in the final review. Guiding principles for data display methods and graphical formats were identified. Seven major factors that may influence PRO data interpretation and use by healthcare professionals were also identified.ConclusionWhile a single best format or approach to feedback PROs data to healthcare professionals was not identified, numerous guiding principles emerged to inform the field.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference66 articles.

1. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) . Health outcomes of care: an idea whose time has come. Ottawa, Ontario, 2012: 1–52.

2. Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder

3. Thompson C , Sansoni J , Morris D , et al . Patient-Reported outcome measures: an environmental scan of the Australian healthcare sector. 89. Sydney, NSW: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2016.

4. Desomer A , Van Den Heede K , Triemstra M , et al . Use of patient-reported outcome and experience measures in patient care and policy. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, 2018: 1–151.

5. Williams K , Sansoni J , Morris D , et al . Patient-Reported outcome measures: literature review. Sydney, NSW: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, 2016: 1–91.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3